3 ms·

Isn't LE more about increasing longevity than increasing life expectancy? That is, we don't have people living to be 200 years old; people's maximum lifespan s

by bcg1 10y ago

Isn't LE more about increasing longevity than increasing life expectancy? That is, we don't have people living to be 200 years old; people's maximum lifespan seems relatively unchanged from 100 years ago (or even several thousand years ago if you go by 120 year limit in the Bible)... we just have a higher percentage of people who reach old age.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
Bible has most of Adam's descendants living 600-900 years. It's not really a reliable source for history.
- bcg1 10y ago
  In the part where the whole Noah/flood thing happened, it says that humans' lifespans would be limited to 120 years (after Adam etc). But that is not the point... no matter whether you take the Bible literally or not (I don't), at the very least it suggests that at the time of the writing there was some observation of 120 years as being a reasonable upper bound for human lifespan.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Alternatively it's interpreted as a prophecy of his plan to wipe out mankind in a flood in 120 years, which is the subject of the rest of the chapter. This is more consistent with Genesis recording Noah's descendants, like their forebears, living multiple centuries. As such, Genesis is far better evidence for the idea that its authors believed that human lifespans could extend centuries beyond the ages they actually lived to and died at.
- frenchy 10y ago
  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Bible is not one book, and it had many authors. There are plenty of historical reference that have been corroborated by archeological findings. You don't need to believe everything to believe something. Edit: I'm also not suggesting that 120 years of age is some sort of divine limit, but it does hint at the sort of lifespans the people at that time considered were possible. Second edit: I mixed my sources up. The 70-80 years that a psalmist mentions is probably a more likely standard old age.

by bcg1 10y ago

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Bible has most of Adam's descendants living 600-900 years. It's not really a reliable source for history.

bcg1 10y ago
In the part where the whole Noah/flood thing happened, it says that humans' lifespans would be limited to 120 years (after Adam etc). But that is not the point... no matter whether you take the Bible literally or not (I don't), at the very least it suggests that at the time of the writing there was some observation of 120 years as being a reasonable upper bound for human lifespan.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Alternatively it's interpreted as a prophecy of his plan to wipe out mankind in a flood in 120 years, which is the subject of the rest of the chapter. This is more consistent with Genesis recording Noah's descendants, like their forebears, living multiple centuries. As such, Genesis is far better evidence for the idea that its authors believed that human lifespans could extend centuries beyond the ages they actually lived to and died at.
frenchy 10y ago
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Bible is not one book, and it had many authors. There are plenty of historical reference that have been corroborated by archeological findings. You don't need to believe everything to believe something. Edit: I'm also not suggesting that 120 years of age is some sort of divine limit, but it does hint at the sort of lifespans the people at that time considered were possible. Second edit: I mixed my sources up. The 70-80 years that a psalmist mentions is probably a more likely standard old age.